POS0378 EVALUATION OF THE USE OF VIDEO CONSULTATION IN GERMAN RHEUMATOLOGY CARE BEFORE AND DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WAVES
Authors: J. Reiter, G. Chehab, P. Aries, F. Muehlensiepen, M. Welcker, A. Voormann, M. Schneider, C. Specker, J. G. Richter
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022)

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic telemedicine tools rapidly and widely gained acceptance as indispensable management tools for the continuum of clinical care in rheumatic diseases. They have been adopted in position papers and guidelines for the management of rheumatic diseases in adult patients. Objectives Evaluation of the use of video consultation as one form of telemedicine before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns among Rheumatology physicians in Germany. The survey results are expected to support the optimization and implementation of video consultation (VC) into routine clinical practice in rheumatology, providing long-term benefits for both parties, patients and their treating rheumatologists. Methods Cross-sectional nationwide online survey among German rheumatologists and rheumatologists in training. The survey was promoted by newsletters sent by means of mail and Twitter posts to members of the German Society for Rheumatology (n=1,650) and German Professional Society for Rheumatology (n=527). Results Reported data refer to 205 participants. The majority of respondents was male (59%), older than 40 years (90%) and specialized in internal medicine/rheumatology (85%). They were divided into two groups: ‘digital users’ (38%) and ‘digital non-users’ (62%). Users employing telemedicine (TM) but never VC were defined as ‘TM-users’ (10%). Those using TM and VC were classified as ‘VC-users’ (27%). ‘Non-users’ negated the use of VC and TM respectively. Knowledge on telemedicine was self-rated as 4 (median on a Likert Scale 1 (very high) to 6 (very low)) with a significant difference between user (VC-user 2.7±1.2, TM-user 3.2±1.1) and non-user (4.4±1.3). The Figure 1 shows a significant increase in the use of VC during the lockdown periods. Even between the lockdown phases, VC use was higher than in the pre-pandemic phase. Figure 1. Grouped patient numbers seen via VC during the pandemic waves Reasons for VC non-use in TM-user and non-user were administrative/technical efforts (21%), lack of technical equipment (15%), time constraints (12%), time required for individual VC sessions (12%), inadequate reimbursement (11%), lack of demand from patients (11%), data security concerns (9%), poor internet connection (8%), and lack of scientific evaluation/evidence (5%). Based on the experience gained, physicians considered the following clinical situations to be particularly suitable for VC: follow-up visits (VC-user 79%, TM-user 62%, non-user 47%), emergency consultations (VC-user 20%, TM-user 33%, non-user 20%), and patients presenting for the first time (VC-user 11%, TM-user 19%, non-user 8%). Table 1. Evaluation of the VC in comparison to other patient interaction (VC-user) on a Likert Scale with 1 (I agree completely) to 6 (I do not agree at all) VC is Mean ± standard deviation (median) … comparable to a face to face meeting (n=52) 4.3 ± 1.3 (4.5) … comparable to a telephone consultation (n=51) 3.3 ± 1.3 (3.0) … suitable as an additional means of communication with the patient (n=51) 2.3 ± 1.5 (2.0) Conclusion Despite the fact that the current pandemic situation, with social distancing and several lockdowns, provides an ideal environment for the implementation of new remote care forms such as VC, their use and acceptance remained below expectations. Given the reported decline in physician face-to-face consultations during the pandemic, these findings are even more concerning. The identified reasons for non-utilization should be addressed by policy makers, payers and medical societies to provide better foundations for future innovative care models. Disclosure of Interests Joana Reiter: None declared, Gamal Chehab: None declared, Peer Aries: None declared, Felix Muehlensiepen Speakers bureau: Novartis Pharma GmbH, Grant/research support from: Novartis Pharma GmbH &amp; AbbVie Deutschland GmbH &amp; Co. KG, Martin Welcker: None declared, Anna Voormann: None declared, Matthias Schneider Speakers bureau: Astra-Zeneca; Biogen; BMS; Celgene; Chugai; GSK; Janssen-Cilag; Lilly; Pfizer; UCB, Paid instructor for: Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie; Astra-Zeneca; Boehringer-Ingelheim; GSK; Lilly; Novartis; Pfizer; Protagen; Roche; Sanofi-Aventis; UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie; Astra-Zeneca; GSK; UCB, Christof Specker: None declared, Jutta G. Richter: None declared